The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-12-24
THE LOCAL OPTION DECISION.

The state supreme court on last Mon
day handed down all opinion on the
Wood local option law in which it de-
clared one phase of the law to be con-
stitutional. Judge Norton wrote the
opinion and it was concurred in by
Judges Ray, Black and Brace. Judge
Sherwood dissenting from the majority
of the court submitted an opinion
to that effect in which he gave nine
reasons why he considered the law I'M
constitutional.
The opinion does not settle all the
questions that have been raised in the
discussion Of the law, for instance the
constitutionality OF the ''give away"
clause literally interpreted, or as to
whether or not the law repeats
the Downing, merchants and drug
gists' laws. These questions it
seems from Judge Norton's language
were raised in the argument of counsel
but not in the case before the court .
To have passed upon them would have
been satisfactory to those desiring q
judicial opinion of the points, but
would have been in the courts
view simply al OJiter dictum, and
not a positive legal settlement. This,
of course, can and will be done by
taking up these questions separately.
1t is we'll understood that part of a
law may be held to be unconstitutional
without destroying the whole. The
opinion given simply decides upon the
question of the machinery OF the law,
the legality of the modus operanA OF
putting it into effect. This the court
holds to be sound.
A great deal of the reasoning of the
| court we can follow and agree with.
| We understand how the necessities OF
the people, especially in municipal cor
porations, have led more and more into
the sanctioning OF local option laws
therein. The principle of local option,
as we have frequently said, we believe
to be good, indeed to be the essence
of the democratic doctrine OF local self.
government, but upon the point of the
completeness of the law when it left
the hands of the legislature the dis
tinction is 80 finely drawn that the
lawyers who decide it to be sufficient
could with the same authorities and
material very easily frame an opinion
on the other side. Upon this point we
have stated our views before, and moth
ing can be gained by going over them
now. They are declared erroneous by
the opinion of a majority of the
supreme court, but are sustained by
Judge Sherwood's opinion, and he il
no less able than his contemporaries
We are not disposed to cavil at the de-
cision of the court, or to find fault
with the judges who rendered it
They had a great question to determine
and n o doubt did SO conscientiously.
The supreme court of the United
States has declared the prohibition
laws of Kansas to be constitutional but
what conclusion the supreme court
OF Missouri would reach upon similaI
laws, under our constitution, is no
declared in Judge Norton's decision.
As a mere matter of political expedi
ency nothing could be better for the
democratic party than the conclusion
arrived al by the court. No matter
how bad the Wood law may be if it,
effect is what it is Interpreted to be by
its author, it is still much less an evi
than constitutional prohibition, ant
the fact that it is permitted to remain
upon the statute book is a fatal blow
10 that species of restraint. This law
if it proves odious by its severity il
subject to amendment or repeal by the
legislature. The other would not be
This law, being severely %prohibitory,
must satisfy thousands OF men who
have it In their counties, whereas, if il
had been declared unconstitutional
these same men would have vigorously
sustained a constitutional amendment
There are several points of the two
opinions that we should like to enlarge
upon, but we have not the time mol
space to do SO now, they will be inter
esting matters of discussion in thu
future.
The court has declared the law, ant
all good citizens will bow to its inter
probation thereof. Those counties tina
want prohibition can have it to thei
hearts content, and in those %countie
where the people do not believe in s.
great a concession of their persona
liberty, or in the efficacy of prohibition
measures, they can simply vote dow,
the law. With such people it is nov
doubly necessary that they shall do SO
as there is less prospect of the destruc
ton of the lazy upon the ground of IN
constitutionality.